Earth Day is coming, and with it, hours and hours of “green” television programming and print media coverage. People who hardly give the environment a thought all year will be “Green Watching” programs – and advertisements – about how to be more environmentally responsible. In the past, I always thought of this heightened awareness as a good thing. The added programming draws broader attention to serious environmental problems like the climate crisis, and I firmly believe an educated public is critical to generating strong climate action throughout society.

However this Earth Day I think it’s important to ask: At what point does “Green Watching” become a form of greenwashing? Should media companies lead by example on corporate climate and environmental action or because of their importance in educating the public is talk enough?

Green Watching can get complicated.

Obviously, media companies (like all companies) are in business to make money. In 2009, the six major media companies Climate Counts scored brought in well over $300 billion dollars in revenue. It’s safe to assume that making money is somewhere behind the creation of all Earth Day, Week, and Month programming; if it was all altruism, there wouldn’t be hours of mostly-mindless commercials. Second, I think we all understand that a network’s brand is a critical part of how it builds an audience (and increases ad revenue). Network brands are becoming increasingly important as people have more information and entertainment options. A network that does environmental programming during Earth Week is trying to brand itself in a certain way.  Yet even if the motivation is profit and the strength of a brand, media companies do have a big impact on both the political debate and in setting cultural and societal norms.

So, how can we as consumers be informed Green Watchers?

The first is to know what commitment these companies have made to addressing climate change. But the facts will blow your mind.

Based on our latest round of scoring (released in November 2009), notoriously conservative News Corporation was near the top of green-committed media companies, with 68 points out of a possible 100. Notoriously hip Viacom (the parent of MTV, BET, Comedy Central, and VH1), however, was not only among the lowest in the media sector with just  three points, but among the lowest of nearly 150 companies scored in 16 major sectors.

You read that right. The company that owns Fox News and the Wall Street Journal is doing more to reduce its own climate impact than the company that is watched by the young, edgy, and culturally dialed-in. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity work for the company doing more on the corporate side to address the climate crisis than the company that gives John Stewart and Stephen Colbert their megaphones. And perhaps what’s most striking is how little improvement Viacom and other low-scoring media companies like CBS and Time Warner have shown in the more than three years since Climate Counts began tracking their performance.

However, in terms of influencing political debates, News Corporation has done as much as anyone to confuse the public on the climate crisis, while Viacom programs like “The Daily Show” and CBS programs like Letterman’s “Late Show” have done much to educate viewers on the dangers of climate change.

But wait, there’s more.

While some of its shows may add depth to the public conversation about climate change, CBS launched an entire “Green Campaign” with the tag line “putting our green where it counts” to do nothing more than promote its Emmy nominated shows. With a score of 13 on our most recent scorecard, CBS has not demonstrated action to match its programming or its self promotion.

Time Warner, known best for news and entertainment divisions like CNN, Time Magazine, and HBO, earns less than a third of the points available on the Climate Counts scorecard for making real efforts to reduce climate pollution. And what is the contribution of media companies to climate change? Let’s start with the sheer number of people who work for or contract with these companies. Indeed, whole cities exist to support the media business. And then consider the energy their equipment, data centers, and facilities use. They’re not refining oil or mining coal, but their impact is not insignificant.

Even Disney, parent company of ABC, ESPN, Pixar and others, while relatively better overall than most of its competitors (47 out of 100 points, up 22 from the previous year), still has a very low score on its efforts to measure its climate pollution (one of the areas we track) and to take responsibility for its enormous supply chain, a massive sphere of influence.

The truth is that “Green Watching” actually isn’t that complicated. People just need to know where these companies stand in all areas of their business—and urge them to improve. If you’re interested in becoming a more active and informed Green Watcher, follow Climate Counts’ new “Green Watching” campaign on Facebook and Twitter.  Next week on and around Earth Day, when all eyes are on the environmental programming of major media companies, help us urge big media companies to talk the talk and walk the walk.

Or are you just going to watch?

Wood Turner is the executive director of the non-profit organization Climate Counts.

Take a look at the Executive Director of Climate Counts explain the importance of green business on NBC.

To learn more about the Industry Innovators Program visit: i2.climatecounts.org

Do toy manufacturers and kids equipment companies care about our children’s future? Based on new research just released by my organization, Climate Counts, the answer is no. I’m being overly harsh to make a point—climate change is toxic to our children’s future and is a safety issue as important as any we deal with as parents.

I believe there is no greater threat to my children’s future than the climate crisis, and I shudder to think about what their lives will be like if we all don’t start doing all we can to reducing the impact we have on carbon pollution now.  We’ve been evaluating corporate action on climate change for over two years now, and we simply haven’t seen the kind of widespread consumer awakening on this issue that’s going to be necessary to move companies to take urgent action.

Since our launch in 2007, we have scored 106 companies across 13 different sectors, and the sector we released yesterday — the toy and children’s equipment sector — scored the absolute lowest. None of this sector’s companies scored greater than 40 (out of 100), and eight companies scored zero.

Certainly, the moms, dads, aunts, uncles and grandparents who purchase most of the toys and kids equipment aren’t going to stand idly by and let their choices continue to support companies that are turning a blind eye to this issue. Perhaps some of these low scoring companies are tackling other issues that parents are concerned about. Shouldn’t they be able to also address the climate crisis?

As a parent, I’m constantly being targeted by child equipment companies with new and safer models to buy (And I must say I’m always shocked by news that the car seats I comfortably used four years ago for my older kids are no longer safe today for my youngest! The steady flow of parents’ dollars to these companies is mind-boggling.). Safety is the primary selling point for the companies that make things like car seats, strollers, high chairs, and the like—with good reason, safety comes first when it comes to your kids. But the fact that these companies seem so concerned about some of the issues that consumers have raised is exactly the reason why I was so surprised when it became clear that the climate actions for the sector were so limited and, as a result, the climate scores for the sector’s companies were so dismal.

Shouldn’t solving the climate crisis be considered a safety issue for our kids?

At Climate Counts we look at, and score, what companies themselves are doing to address the climate crisis. The companies are scored on a 0-to-100 point scale based on 22 criteria that measure companies’ efforts to assess their own climate footprint, reduce their emissions, support (or block) progress on major climate legislation, and communicate their efforts clearly and comprehensively to consumers.  You can view the detailed scores [http://www.climatecounts.org/scorecard_sectors.php?id=28].

We found that most of the big companies in the sector weren’t taking even the most basic step of measuring their own climate impact—but we do know there is innovation in the sector. Scores of smaller toy and children’s equipment makers are investing in green advances. Imagine if the largest companies – Mattel, Hasbro, Lego, Rubbermaid, Evenflo, Chicco, and more – were doing the same. There would be an extraordinary opportunity to educate consumers on the issue and build a long-term and lucrative relationship with the families who recognize that they must support companies that care about climate change.

As parents and consumers, we have the power to do something about the climate crisis. Most consumers by now understand that there are simple things we can do to reduce our own carbon footprint, many of us also understand our power to influence elected officials to pass strong climate policy—but we also have the power to influence companies to take action to reduce their climate impact.

We’ve found that companies are very responsive to consumers and I have no doubt that if these companies hear from parents and consumers that climate is a safety issue—they will respond by taking action.  Each of the toy and children’s equipment companies we have scored has its own page on our site, and each of those pages has a way that you can send e-mail directly to the company to let them know how you feel – positively or negatively – about their Climate Counts score. Make your voice heard. It makes a difference.

This was our first time scoring this sector, so they deserve some time to get their act together and the time to hear from consumers. We’ll score them next year again and expect to see some real improvement.

The reports are in – the physical, social and economic impacts of global warming affect women more than men. So it’s appropriate that women are also in a position to have the greatest impact in fighting climate change. With the US presidential election looming, women represent a majority of those who will be going to the polls. With growing numbers in leading non-profit and corporate jobs, women continue to shake and steer the course of the world. And as the primary consumers of our society, the dollars they spend mean a lot. Climate Counts is pleased to feature the following guest post from the Women’s Environment & Development Organization (courtesy of our friends at the Communications Consortium Media Center), and we hope you appreciate their perspective as much as we do.

By June Zeitlin, Executive Director, Women’s Environment & Development Organization

The more we experience the effects of climate change, the clearer it becomes that everyone on the planet has a huge stake in what we decide to do now. That is why it is appalling that women are still being overlooked as key to the solution.

When storms and mudslides devastate a neighborhood, women shoulder most of the cleanup, stay home from work or school the most and take care of the injured. When drought hits the developing world, it is women whose crops and animals suffer most, as they produce most of the food in Africa and Asia. Women are the ones who risk assault to go further and further in search of water and firewood.

Women, in short, are the most affected by the disruptions of climate change. But women also have the most experience in coping. Women drive less, consume less and have smaller carbon footprints than men. Women’s initiatives are creating green jobs and slowing environmental damage worldwide. Yet women are generally left out of policy deliberations on what to do about global warming.

It is time for this to change. Next year’s new Congress will consider legislation to mandate new greenhouse gas emission standards and invest in measures to grow a greener U.S. economy. Election season offers politicians the chance to stand out from their opponents by recognizing women’s centrality on this issue and pledging to involve them in its solution. So far, it isn’t happening.

Women produce 65 percent of all the food in Asia and 75 percent of it in sub-Saharan Africa. Erratic weather means they must spend more time farming and gathering food, which leaves less time for education, outside work, personal and family life. The result: ill health, hunger, homelessness, unemployment, forced migration and conflict. But in Kenya, for example, Wangari Maathai started the Greenbelt Movement, urging women to be leaders in planting trees to prevent erosion and stand up for democracy. For this she won the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize.

In Suriname, no one listened when women pointed out that a local river’s annual floods were getting worse and that perhaps the village should relocate to higher ground. It was wiped out the following year. When drought hit Micronesia, women were digging wells and creating new water sources long before the government decided what it could do. When Hurricane Mitch killed thousands in Central America in 1998, no one died in the Honduran town of La Masica because women there participated equally with men in all relief operations, went on rescue missions, rehabilitated local infrastructure, distributed food and took over the task, from men, of monitoring the early-warning system for disasters.

Women are a majority of the world’s poor, and the poor by definition live in substandard housing in marginal areas prone to drought, floods or resource shortages. Up to 70 percent of those killed in the 2004 Asian tsunami were women. In Bangladesh, the 1991 cyclone and flood killed 71 of every 1,000 women, compared to 15 of every 1,000 men. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, women forced into overcrowded housing suffered high rates of sexual abuse, while lack of child care facilities has cost many their jobs and health insurance. Contemplating the slow government response, Wisconsin Lieutenant Governor Barbara Lawton sponsored a resolution at the 2007 national lieutenant governors’ conference calling on officials to commit to action in their states against climate change.

Political candidates should take note that women are both those most affected by climate change worldwide and leaders in dealing with it. At the moment, the debate focuses on technical and economic issues. True, those are crucial: an effective policy should require emission cuts of 25 to 40 percent by 2020, suspend new coal plants and end U.S. fossil fuel dependence through incentives for energy efficiency and renewable resource production.

It should also require research on gender-specific patterns of resource use, vulnerability and coping mechanisms. It should call for new data collection about every proposal’s effects on women, and mandate involvement by women and gender experts in preparing U.S. policy and contributions to international discussions. It should recognize that success of the technical fixes will depend on the ways that women use natural and economic resources and the way they react to policy initiatives.

The planet’s future is at stake in the global warming debate, no question about it. Women are weighing in with reports and suggestions from the field where they know the terrain. It’s time for their voices to be heard and heeded.

June Zeitlin is the executive director of the Women’s Environment & Development Organization (WEDO). Founded in 1991, WEDO is an international organization that advocates for women’s equality in global policy.

Estimates suggest there are upwards of 300,000 fast food restaurants in the United States, one for approximately every 101 Americans. My guess is that the actual number of restaurants changes daily. In a world with “billions and billions served,” how could we be more precise than “thousands and thousands serving”? That’s not to mention franchises popping up of every shape and size and even the specter of venerable institutions in the industry being absorbed by yesterday’s also-rans and what that will mean for consumers.

In a general sense, we know what fast food means for American consumers. Quite simply, it’s convenience and affordability. In a culture perpetually on the run, who has time to cook balanced, natural meals at home? And with gas prizes pounding the wallets of families in “forced marriages” with their cars (as Colin Beavan of the blog No Impact Man says), who wants to spend more than a few bucks on something as important as food? Our self-imposed rat-race has driven millions of us into the waiting arms of the highly profitable fast-food industry.

Unfortunately, the cost of that now almost 80-year embrace with the drive-thru far exceeds what consumers can buy from the value menu. The industry has long been criticized for its impact on national health care by contributing to heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and the effects of childhood obesity. It’s been the target of animal-rights advocates and, more recently, forest advocacy organizations because of its packaging impacts. And now, it’s become increasingly clear that the industry is a laggard on global climate change. In our annual Climate Counts scores of well-known consumer companies on their commitment to addressing climate change, four out of six companies (Yum! Brands, Burger King, Darden Restaurants, and Wendy’s) in the food services sector made no improvements in their scores from 2007 to 2008. That’s in a year when 84% of the companies we scored actually improved their scores, some significantly. It adds insult to injury when you consider that those four companies earned scores of one point or even zero points on a 100 point scale (100 being the highest possible score) for two years running. (Two other food services companies, Starbucks and McDonald’s, score significantly higher than the other four but much lower than many other companies we’ve investigated.)

What do the scores mean? They mean these companies are not measuring their climate impact, they’re not substantively and comprehensively working to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, they’re not supporting good public policy on climate, and they’re not being open and transparent with consumers about any real commitment to making climate actions a part of long-term business strategy. These companies spend tens of billions of dollars every year on energy, and by some estimates, as much as 80% of that energy is wasted through outmoded buildings and restaurants and inefficient food storage. Their impact on climate and our communities is all too clear.

Suddenly, convenient and cheap food is not so easy and cheap anymore. Inefficient use of energy affects corporate bottom lines – and it hits consumers. But that’s just the beginning. A report released in May from Tufts University and the Natural Resources Defense Council suggests that lack of action on climate will eventually cost our economy $3.8 trillion a year. What’s truly astonishing is the significant amounts of that money that could be saved by businesses and families with a little forward-thinking and some thoughtful investment. But the time for this action is of the essence.

This summer, Climate Counts is circulating a petition designed to send a clear message to the fast- food industry that it’s time to get serious about climate change. Through our partnerships with artists like Jack Johnson and organizations like the Hip Hop Caucus, we’re asking people around the country to use their mobile phones to get active on climate change by signing our fast-food petition.

It’s time to tell an industry skilled in the art of speed what urgency really means.

Since we announced our updated 2008 company scores last week, many have focused on Apple’s low score.

Frankly, there are many better stories coming out of our scores this year. In fact, we felt there were so many better stories that we didn’t even mention Apple in our press release about the new scores. What about the double-digit point improvements from 2007 to 2008 of 23 of the 56 companies we’ve scored so far? What about the fact that no companies now fall below the 12-point stuck threshold in either the household products sector or the food products sector when four companies did last year? What about the fact that 84% of the companies we’ve scored have improved their score from 2007 to 2008?  This is all big news as far as we’re concerned in the growing movement to fight global climate change. Companies are recognizing - for whatever reason - that it’s no longer OK to turn a blind eye to this issue.

But all that good news aside, what’s going on with Apple? 2 points in 2007, 11 points in 2008?

Very simply, in our review of Apple’s public (consumer-accessible) reporting, what we found in 2007 and continued to find to a somewhat lesser degree in 2008 (through March 2008) was the following:

1. Apple had never made any public statements about any effort it had made to comprehensively (or in a more limited way) measure the greenhouse gas emissions from its companywide activities, among them corporate and retail facilities, design and development of products, manufacture of products by leading suppliers, and product distribution. At Climate Counts, we evaluate whether companies have used a standard and accepted protocol for measuring companywide emissions, for example the World Resource Institute’s and World Business Council on Sustainable Development’s Greenhouse Gas Protocol. As a result of last week’s press coverage of the release of our 2008 scores, Apple was finally quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle as saying, “We measure the emissions from all of our company’s activities.” Up until then, however, there had been no public indication of that fact, despite our direct requests to the company. We’d be interested in hearing more specifics of what standard they’re using, and if they’re trying to evaluate overseas manufacturing in their review.  But it’s a start, and this public acknowledgement of measuring emissions will improve their score in coming years. 

2. Apple had not established any public goals or timelines for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from its companywide activities. Goal-setting is both a critical part of defining corporate intent to act on climate AND an incredibly business-friendly climate metric. Our scorecard is designed to allow us to look at all kinds of corporate goal-setting. Certainly, we hope all companies will set aggressive goals to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions quickly and in absolute terms. Apple has set no public companywide climate protection goals, and as a result, there is no evidence that the company has achieved any greenhouse gas emissions reductions toward such a goal.

For that matter, there is no evidence of any goals by Apple to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from energy used in the use of its products. This is noteworthy because the company has clearly undergone considerable effort to make its products more energy efficient, suggesting that nearly two-thirds of the company’s impact on climate change occurs during the use of its products. How Apple arrives at that number would certainly be interesting to know. Studies on the sector as a whole reveal that as much as 70% of the energy and environmental impact of a personal computer occurs before it is purchased by the consumer. By all accounts, the manufacturing of computers and other high-tech equipment is incredibly energy intensive, and that’s what we’re concerned about at Climate Counts. Consumers can certainly decide to purchase the most energy-efficient, “greenest” products they can (although we question the positive impact of replacing last year’s model with this year’s “greener” one; the issue of “embodied energy” presents one of the reasons why we should think differently about buying green), but that’s the consumer’s responsibility in all of this. When companies understand their impact and set clear, public goals to reduce the energy they use in producing gadgets and getting them to consumers, it sends a critical message to consumers that this kind of accountability is important. It’s important that governments, consumers, AND companies accept that kind of accountability.

We applaud Apple’s efforts to understand the life-cycle impact of its products, and we awarded full points (4 points) to the company for those activities. We also acknowledged with 3 of a possible 4 points the company’s efforts to educate consumers in a general way about environmental action and to engage with other companies on energy efficiency as part of the California Green Power Group (along with the company’s green power investments, which also earned a point). There a range of environmental activities that Apple has underway that we did not award points for using our narrow-by-design lens that looks at corporate climate activities. We certainly agree that product recycling efforts and other related initiatives can have a tremendous impact on energy use and, as such, greenhouse gas emissions, but we believe it is important for companies to demonstrate that those activities are connected to a broader climate action strategy before we consider them as actions that merit points on a climate-focused scorecard.

3. Apple has not actively or publicly engaged on the climate policy front. Apple has made no public statements in support climate protection policy at the local, state, federal or international level.

4. Apple’s reporting on all of its climate activities in considerably less detailed than any of its major competitors. Climate Counts has reviewed all the information available on Apple’s climate performance on its website and elsewhere. We’ve read A Greener Apple posted last May to the Apple website, as well as the “Environment” and the “Energy Efficiency” pages on the site - and much more. Compare, just as an example, Apple’s reporting to the Carbon Disclosure Project with that of IBM (this year’s sector score leader). The information simply doesn’t shed any light - as much as we would like it to - on what Apple is doing or plans to do to address greenhouse gas emissions companywide.

Climate Counts utilizes a team of independent researchers to gather publicly available information on the companies we have scored. They are a very well-trained team, representing many important slices of the consumer marketplace. They’re environmental researchers, they’re communications professionals, they’re business analysts. In many ways, they’re people just like you. They’re people who want to know what companies are doing to address climate change, and they’re charged with helping you get answers.

To score well, companies must be up front with consumers on their stance on climate.   Some have described this as a flaw of our scoring system-implying that companies that aren’t marketing their “green credentials” suffer and that we reward talk over action. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our experience is that if companies aren’t willing to be transparent, aren’t willing to face scrutiny from an increasingly sophisticated marketplace, they’re obstructing the issue. They’re not part of a solution that requires action from multiple fronts. The time for companies to just say “trust us, we’re good on climate” has passed. Consumers want to see - and follow - companies committed to real substantive action.

Even in the wake of so much cyber-attention to Apple’s low Climate Counts score for a second year running, we’re still focused on the positive stories coming out of this year’s scores. Many companies (and their consumers) are realizing that meaningful climate action is a crucial part of the future of any company that is focused on the 21^st century. We continue our quest as an organization to find the true corporate leaders on climate protection who embrace the opportunity to lock arms with their consumers and stand unified in the fight to stop global warming.

When it comes to our growing public conversation about the environment and sustainability, I’m always struck by how much it seems like a bad 7th grade debate. One voice authoritatively states a defensible position, and the other voice responds with a similarly viable point of view. Then it goes back to the first voice, returns to the second voice, and so on, until one voice either wins the so-called debate, or the debate continues on endlessly, leaving the rest of the class – or society as a whole – bewildered and confused.

We see this with so many divisive political issues all the time. And unfortunately, we are seeing it with climate change – and more specifically the notion of corporate climate responsibility. As many media outlets report on the new Climate Counts company scores we released this week, the point/counterpoint dynamic looms large.

Here’s usually how the story goes: we evaluate the publicly available information on the climate actions of some of the world’s most well-known companies, score and rank them, and then present what is a hopeful story about what we see as the growing openness and technical sophistication of many companies we’ve scored as they address climate change. Then some of those companies are asked to respond their scores, most often the companies that seem most surprising or haven’t improved as much as others. Those companies often protest, and then the issue is left at that. A non-profit organization provides its analysis; a company brushes it off. Where does that leave us?

What I’d like to hear in the reporting on stories about corporate action (or inaction) on climate is not what one side or the other thinks, but what consumers really think – from real consumers themselves. After all, it’s consumer concern that motivates companies to act on any issue. I’m often asked – do consumers really care about what companies are doing to address climate change? I always mention that fact that over the last year, thousands of people have come through the Climate Counts website and have sent e-mail directly to companies, and in a number of cases, companies themselves have told us they’ve heard from many people about their Climate Counts scores, so much so that they considered it a call to action – or it expedited their ongoing climate action plans.

Consumers and companies need to be collaborating to address the climate crisis. That means that it takes (1) individual behavior change, (2) strong public policy, (3) the development of greener products and greener energy technologies, and, (4) yes, a clear demonstration from the world’s biggest companies that they are committed to leading by example on climate protection – through measurement, actual companywide emissions reductions, policy engagement, and public education. When they show the marketplace that they can reduce the companywide impact they have on climate, it sends a strong message to us all – that reducing our climate impact can and, in fact, must be part of a growing, 21st-century economy.

At the end of the day, I don’t care which companies are on top or which companies are on the bottom of the Climate Counts rankings. What I care about is whether all companies are committed to taking responsibility and doing something. Even if the ranks of the companies we’ve scored were completely reversed, that point of view wouldn’t change one iota.

The fact of the matter is, we know that companies have a tremendous impact on climate change – not just in the products and services they provide but in what goes in to creating those products and services. What we don’t know is whether consumers really care about what companies are doing about climate change – and care enough to hold them accountable.

So tell me — do you?

Wood Turner - Project Director, ClimateCounts.org

Consumer climate action isn’t just about switching to compact fluorescent lightbulbs or buying recycled. While people across the country are taking action to reduce their own carbon footprint, some consumers are using their power to push companies to take action themselves - and it’s paying off.

Today, Climate Counts is releasing its second annual Climate Counts Company Scorecard. We launched our first Scorecard last year with the hope that creating a simple, easy-to-understand ranking of companies would motivate both companies and consumers to step-up their efforts on climate change.

Now, with the release of our second scorecard, we can say that it appears to have worked. The new Scorecard shows a real shift towards greater climate commitment across most industry sectors — with 84% of scored companies improving their Climate Counts scores. Looking at the companies that showed the most improvement—Google, Levi Strauss and Anheuser-Busch—shows the diverse kinds of great American companies committed to paying attention to global climate change.

The average overall Climate Counts score jumped 22% to 39 (from 30). That number, 39 out of 100, also shows that there is still a lot of work to do. Please spend some time on our site exploring how companies stack up with each other on climate performance (Click here to check out our new scores.).

We’ve been excited by the response from consumers all over the world who have told us over and over again how ready they are to align themselves with companies that reflect their own concern for global warming. Consumers have told us – through their e-mails and calls to us and to the companies we’ve scored – that they are ready to vote with their dollars to stimulate meaningful corporate climate action.

We’ve always believed that a more informed, climate-conscious consumer can play the most important role in driving corporate action in a dynamic marketplace. Indeed, those voices play much louder in corporate boardrooms than you probably ever imagined. When everyday people raise an issue with companies in a clear way, those companies pay attention. We know because it’s reflected in our new scores.

Most companies have a long way to go, but it’s a promising start. Thanks for joining with us.